RE: What are words for?

RE: What are words for? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:35:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee FR to arguers: please think about this: "A sign is the basic unit of language (a given language at a given time). Every language is a complete system of signs. Parole (the speech of an individual) is an external manifestation of language." --Ferdinand de Saussure ("Father" of the linguistics of modernity, and, actually, subsequent literary theory) Interesting, subtee. So is a sign like a sound or syllable?

KnightofMists -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:37:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee No. They can't. Signs are nothing without signifiers which are only ever given meaning by an agreed upon acceptance of the meanings of signs. Signs are never commands. They are a construct of human beings to convey information to other human beings. Kinda like how you understood from my "signs" that I was refering to you (referent) and you knew it, even though I didn't use direct language (i.e. "I'm talking about xoxi here) to do it. It was a sign. Sent and received. That is the mutherfucking point. Baited... Hooked... and Reeled in!!!

juliaoceania -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:37:41 PM)
I thought the basic unit of language was a meme according to my anthropology classes... damn, they taught me wrong! I meant morphmeme... damn I hate linguistic anthropology!

xoxi -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:38:06 PM)
Tell that to the military - they have a whole MESS of signs and signals that, when given by the CO, darn well better be followed. I can only imagine the sergeant having to explain to the new recruits "No private touching my nose and pointing that way is not a god damn suggestion IT IS AN ORDER AND YOU WILL OBEY IT." Edited to say - you say signs mean nothing without signifiers that ascribe meaning to them. I would assume, just as a guess, that is why in nearly every post I once again took time to specify I was speaking in terms of "the relationship paradigm that has been agreed on." If I told my Master 'coffee' when he was whipping me, without specifing first that it was a safeword, he would assume I wanted to drink some coffee. If I told him 'aardvark' he would think I saw a strange critter. And the only way 'red' would make sense is because it's so commonly used that he can guess as to what the signifier means - but still without having agreed that red is the safeword it means nothing.

subtee -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:42:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: subtee FR to arguers: please think about this: "A sign is the basic unit of language (a given language at a given time). Every language is a complete system of signs. Parole (the speech of an individual) is an external manifestation of language." --Ferdinand de Saussure ("Father" of the linguistics of modernity, and, actually, subsequent literary theory) Interesting, subtee. So is a sign like a sound or syllable? It's like this: I could say "cat" to you. You garner a mental image from that (referent). However, in some other locales "pussy" would mean the same thing. I'm guessing you get a differnt mental image (a very different referent). Words, language (sign) is a social construct which requires agreed upon meanings.

xoxi -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:42:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists Baited... Hooked... and Reeled in!!! No need to get personal here - I'm just talking about ideas.

dcnovice -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 7:49:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: subtee FR to arguers: please think about this: "A sign is the basic unit of language (a given language at a given time). Every language is a complete system of signs. Parole (the speech of an individual) is an external manifestation of language." --Ferdinand de Saussure ("Father" of the linguistics of modernity, and, actually, subsequent literary theory) Interesting, subtee. So is a sign like a sound or syllable? It's like this: I could say "cat" to you. You garner a mental image from that (referent). However, in some other locales "pussy" would mean the same thing. I'm guessing you get a differnt mental image (a very different referent). Words, language (sign) is a social construct which requires agreed upon meanings. I think I get it. I was taking "basic unit" more literally. Is it fair to say the sign is the basic unit of meaning?

juliaoceania -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 8:00:30 PM)
quote: I was taking "basic unit" more literally. The basic sound unit in language is a morphmeme

dcnovice -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 8:01:40 PM)
Are they smaller than phonemes? [:)]

subtee -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 8:01:40 PM)
A sign has two sides: the phonetic component (how it sounds) and its "written" sequence of letters or however it is conveyed, and then the resultant mental image. Neither can stand alone. Both form the basic genesis of language (from a linguistical theorhetical standpoint).

dcnovice -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 8:02:43 PM)
Can a sign be polysyllabic? Sorry to grill you; I'm genuinely interested.

subtee -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 8:04:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: I was taking "basic unit" more literally. The basic sound unit in language is a morphmeme I had some awesome morphmeme after my C-section. Mmmmmm. (hahaha)

juliaoceania -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 8:17:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtee quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: I was taking "basic unit" more literally. The basic sound unit in language is a morphmeme I had some awesome morphmeme after my C-section. Mmmmmm. (hahaha) I got Demerol.. lol Your posts on this thread are some of the most tricky in an intellectual ass kicking sort of way... you got a lot of respect from me tonight. I do not think I will ever challenge you[;)]

juliaoceania -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 8:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Are they smaller than phonemes? [:)] They are the smalles "meaningful" unit... which I am not a linguist so please do not ask me what that means[:D] I cannot believe I am going to have to take these sorts of classes in grad school[:'(]

subtee -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 8:29:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Can a sign be polysyllabic? Sorry to grill you; I'm genuinely interested. Absolutely. A sign can be a handstand, or those clicking sounds that are part of language in some parts of the world. The main point (and that which is relevant to this thread, or so I thought) is that it doesn't matter what is characterized as a "safe word" or "darling, my pelvis just shattered"or whateverthefuckelseanyonewantstouse. It's the dynamic between people that creates the connection in the way that they agree upon. So, in essence, no one here was ever arguing, it seems to me. Cool, huh?

MadRabbit -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 8:57:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi I have tried as much as I can to clarify things, and I'm still not being heard. I don't think clarify is the best sign for this particular referral. I think another "C" word might be better. Contradict.

subtee -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 9:01:50 PM)
quote: got Demerol.. lol Your posts on this thread are some of the most tricky in an intellectual ass kicking sort of way... you got a lot of respect from me tonight. I do not think I will ever challenge you[;)] Nice lady! Thank you for that. No challenge forthcoming from me. I dig your posts too.[;)]

Archer -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 9:11:13 PM)
xoxi, I think the problem you keep running into is that you keep saying it IS a command and it is being read as if that is the only logical viewpoint. (quite possibly an encode decode mixup) Rather than I see it as a command but can see how you might not. I'm seeing how you can see it as a command, but here is how I'm viewing it and in this context it is not a command but rather the fulfillment of a duty. Standing order is to commuicate (commanded by Master X) Manner of communication is specified (specified by Master X) Format of communication specified (specified by Master X) Where you see the safeword as a command because it "requires" the Master to stop long enough to recieve the full message. I'm seeing that the requirement was placed there by the Master so he is submitting to his own requirement not a requirement placed there by the slave/submissive/bottom. Therfore the authority has not shifted and without authority there can be no command. Now in the case that the slave/submissive/ bottom said I am willing to submit however I need a safeword, then the requirement was placed there by them not the Master/dominant/top and the view that it is a command holds a bit more weight.

laurell3 -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 10:50:16 PM)
[sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif] quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Red. [sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif][sm=banana.gif]

caro44 -> RE: What are words for? (11/14/2007 11:04:48 PM)
I am so confused. have read 16 pages and none of it makes me believe that safewords are not valuable. Ths first tim I met with my Sir he gave me a safe word and it is still in effect, though I do not use it very often. As long as he tells me to remember the word I will and he reminds me of it every time we play. I am proably way off topic here, sorry if i borthered andyone.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875